April 17, 2006

Whassup with Iran?

The Washington Times reports: “Iran has expanded its uranium-conversion facilities in Isfahan and reinforced its Natanz underground uranium-enrichment plant, a U.S. think tank said amid growing speculation about U.S. military action.”

Think about think tanks for a minute. Why do they get funding? Do they make their living speaking truth to money and power, or by selling what money and power want to buy? Beware the think tanks.

New York Times reports:: "Iran is working on a P-2 centrifuge, an advanced uranium enrichment machine that could speed development of a nuclear weapon."

Now why is Iran prodding the world to do something interventionist?

Possible answers:

1) The Iranian President has as many screws loose as our own President,
2) he truly believes the world is impotent to do anything as long as the committment in Iraq is ongoing, or
3) he really does want an invasion to occur, uniting Muslims around the world in a way al-Queda could only dream about.

My bet is on 1 and 3, and both are equally nuts if we play into such insanity! No doubt Bush's folks will choose #2 and take it as a challenge to their testosterone levels.

What do you think? Is Iran already becoming a quagmire we are going to be unable to extricate ourselves from?

Will these or any other problems America faces improve if Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives? If not, why vote Republican or Democrat? Unless it is to unseat an incumbent and send a message to them all that "we've had enough and we aren't going to take this crap from politicians anymore!"

Look at how well those think tanks thought through Iraq.
It’s very complicated.
More complicated than rocket science.
More like quantum mechanics.
It hard work. Remember?
Especially with a sum a I.Q. of 38.

Think about think tanks for a minute. Why do they get funding? Do they make their living speaking truth to money and power, or by selling what money and power want to buy? Beware the think tanks.

I’m glad someone brought up the topic of think tanks. When I read about the groups assisting the administration on Iran issues, I ran across the name of one of those groups that I hadn’t heard from in a very long time.

It was the innocently named “National Institute for Public Policy.” (It’s not the one in the article cited above.) Why do I remember it? Back in the early days of the Reagan administration it was in the business of writing about how nuclear war was “winnable.” Yes, folks, we paid people good money to “analyze” how to “win” a nuclear war.

Now with the Bush administration giving serious thought to using nuclear weapons against Iran, the administration is paying these folks to “think” about that again. (I assume that’s what they are paying them for; I’m sure the topic is “secret.”)

No sane person needs to think (paid or unpaid) for more than a second to know this a bad idea. But these morons are getting probably $1,000 an hour to come up with dangerous ideas that, if carried out, will end up doing nothing more that killing a lot of people with radiation poisoning and other horrible deaths, and diminish the U.S.’s standing in the world to fraction of where it is today (which alone isn’t very good).

The problem here is that regardless of the intentions of the Democrats or Republicans, we do have a problem if Iran gains nuclear weapons. Now the right response is not one born of irrational fear, but instead one born of an interest of examining the faultlines of the situation. We should see where Ahmadinejad’s government is weakest in terms of their public support. We should see where we could find good sources within their government so we can discover the plans of various factions. We should build contingency plans for the worst, and bind together some coalitions to both isolate and possible attack Iran.

Responsible foreign policy looks to what is in our best interests, not necessarily to any one outcome. In opposing the overly belligerent policies of Bush and his ilk, we must not throw away military intervention as an unwanted but potentially necessary option.

If one leaves all options on the table, doesn’t that also mean an option to pressure without threat until a real threat warrants a counterthreat? Apparently, Bush is not keeping all options on the table. Especially those which would preclude America’s expanded military presence over Middle Eastern oil fields.

Pakistan is one bullet away from al-Queda control with armed nuclear weapons already existing. So, where is our Administration’s concern about Pakistan being the greatest near term threat? Civil unrest has been picking up steam in Pakistan for the last several months with uprisings, conflicts, and bombings occuring nearly on a weekly basis. Oh, yeah, forgot, only olive oil in Pakistan.

Did you check out that “Think Tank”. I think they just made up their whole place to give themselves cool titles.

I kinda like the “Washington Times”, but you can’t count on the quality of their reporting.

BTW in your options, I believe in #1 for sure (without the reference to Bush) and a modifed #2. He believes that the world community will take no action, since he saw how long Saddam pulled the UN chain and got away with it. He knows only the U.S. could and we won’t because of Iraq AND the complete lack of world support.

I don’t believe they are as far along as they say. Saddam led us to believe he had WMD because it make him feel stronger. Same here.

Will radioactively contaminated oil improve my milage????
Smart-A** coments aside, will this administration ever stop cherry picking their intel and opinion farms? It is startring to play out like a poorly produced Frank Herbert novel. How many more fronts to “the war on terror” are we going to open up?

Ethan, right on, right on! Unless, and Until, Iran develops inter-continental ballistic missiles, they are no threat to us. It should be time the Iranian neighborhood woke up and realized they are going to have to police their own backyard, BUT, screw loose Bush keeps ‘em depending on Our World Cop infinite debt resources policy so they can slumber while we go bankrupt.

Neither will it use nuclear weapons unless a dirty bomb is deployed here and Iran is culpable.

Isreal will.

Isreal,I predict,will shortly (within several months)launch a decapitation attack at the Iranian leadership and the Salafist mullahs in Qom.

They may also have to preemptively attack Syria as well.
While they are doing this,America will move against the Shia Salafist leadership (read:Al Sadr) in Iraq,and the Navy will engage the Iranian Navy as it attempts to mine the Strait.

This move will fracture the liberal democratic movement here in the states as the Jewish vote will support Isreal and ultimately the administration because Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed,as well as Howard Dean and Ted Kennedy will rail against the attack.

Look for something to happen in October,shortly before the mid-term election.

These Iranians are Nazis.They hate you and I.Hate us.They hate what we stand for,what we believe in,our religion,our food,our way of life,everything.

Egypt will stay out of it too,as will most of the Sunni countries.Isreal will do their dirty work for them.

When it’s over,unfortunately,many many innocent will have died…just like in Germany.

My first problem with how everyone treats Iran is the fact that, for eight years, they had a reformer in the office of president who was reaching out to the United States and other countries to try and bring change to Iran. Unfortunately this new guy got elected, but by the time this election came around, so much power had been stripped from the office of president that it is now essentially a figurehead possition. The Supreme Leader is currently the one with the most power, even the president is subordinated to him, and thats Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who’s been in power since 1989. While there was a reformer with a popular mandate the likes of which is rarely seen (70% of the popular vote), the United States had no relations toward Iran, and even coined the term “axis of evil” to include them. Now that we have thoroughly alienated the Iranian people, they vote in a hardliner and we start to get tough on them. Where was all this effort to help bring true democracy to Iran while there wasn’t someone unhinged in the possition of the head of state?

There isn’t any direct evidence that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons at the moment, everything thus far has been guesswork, and I must say that under these circumstances, a nuclear first strike would probably be a crime against humanity, since it would target massive numbers of civillians who would all die even though their government had not even come close to having the technology we fear.

Here’s the problem, invading and bringing democracy to Iraq failed (if you look at the operational goals that Rumsfeld set, less than 200,000 in, get the government up, and bail), so how are we going to invade a nation which is larger, more populus, and which has a government that is democratically elected (obviously the fact that it is a theocracy makes it illegitmate as a liberal democracy, but it is a democratic government). This is not Iraq under Ba’ath rule, this is a government that was set up after the people threw out the Shah, the United States supported dictator who was easily as brutal a dictator as Sadam Hussein, and which is voted into power by the people. That is not to say that changes shouldn’t be made, im simply saying that if we think the resistance is bad in Iraq, imagine what Iran will do, considering our past history. I don’t see invasion as any sort of option at all.

iandanger, except for your last sentence, that was the most cogent narrative of the situation I have read with such economy of words. Well done.

As for the last sentence, invasion is not a rational option. That in no way precludes it from taking place anyway, not with this administration calling the shots. Invading Iraq secured their Nov. 2004 election. Invading Iran has to be on some minds in the White House as a ticket to keeping party power in the November elections.

Do not forget, the plans are for air strikes NOT ground troops. That could play very well in November’s elections.

Americans are fond of the saying in war time, “don’t change horses in mid stream”.

I was in a think tank once because I forgot to pay a traffic ticket. They called it a drunk tank back then. Those guys all had an opinion.

I think we’ve already been in negotiation with Iran. We’ve told them if they hold a nuke we won’t mess with them, kind of like we do with North Korea. If they don’t, we’ll screw with them like Iraq, because we can.

I’m no spokesman for Iran and it’s irrational president and autocratic regime. However, Iran exists in a very dangerous region. Further, it’s neighbours, Pakistan, India, and Israel all have nuclear weapons capabilities. The problem with any weapons system is, if my neighbour has them, then maybe i’d better have them too. Isn’t it strange that the US administration is silent on India and Pakistans arsenal. Why the silence over Israels flouting of UN resolutions and illegal nuclear stockpile? Of course India and Israel are democracies, and perhaps that’s all the more reason why they should conform to international requirements. Why is Washington so silent in these cases, and yet so shrill in relation to Iran? This is the kind of inevitable double standard that faces all powers in their dealings with others, and leaves them completely vulnerable to the charge of hypocracy.
The Iranian people are gradually shifting back into the mainstream international community of nations. The mullahtocracy’s days are numbered. If things are handled with finesse and wisdom, Iran will before long become a true beacon of moderation and democracy in the middle east. If Washington insists on megaphone diplomacy and hair trigger responses a la Iraq, then God help us all. What do I know, but could the American people really stomach another Iraq while the first one is still burning?

> The problem here is that regardless of the
> intentions of the Democrats or Republicans,
> we do have a problem if Iran gains nuclear
> weapons.

No, you don’t.
Unless you actually live in Middle East or near this area.
Unless you’re not ready to lose these special interests that so many nations worldwide have on the 4th oil producer…

The issue is not having nuclear weapons, the issue is about using them. The issue is about shifting from deterence policy to a preemptive one. The famous First Strike strategy, also called NUTS stategy.

Now answer this: who, today, is planning to actually *use* nukes? Who, today, is shifting is nukes stockpiles to a standard tactical weapons like others? Iran or US?

Iran leader(s) are crazy since years. But only the most powerfull countries in the world are fool enough to actually think one could even “win” a nuclear war. Winning a war is way more than winning on tactical space. Iraq war is a very good sample for such lessons, it seems…
Why nobody at White House want to learn them?

In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan’s defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan’s inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident. 3
In 2000 former hostages and their survivors sued Iran under the 1996 Antiterrorism Act, which permits U.S. citizens to sue foreign governments in cases of state-sponsored terrorism. The following year they won the lawsuit by default when Iran did not offer a defense. The U.S. State Dept. sought dismissal of the suit, arguing it would hinder its ability to negotiate international agreements, and a federal judge dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for damages in 2002, ruling that the agreement that resulted in their release barred awarding any damages.

Seems to me, we need to concentrate more on our own corrupt, bought-and-paid-for, FOR-SALE, do-nothing, hypocritical government?

For my part, I’ve always thought the greater nuclear threat were the countries that we currently give nuclear technology to. They seem to be on our side now, but such “alliances” can easily shift in a few decades. We are essentially arming potential enemies and increasing the destructive capabilities of the entire world.

Iran will not easily be stopped. I would question whether the sacrifices needed to deter its nuclear program are worth it.

We are wasting our time with think tanks unless they are staffed with retired generals. They seem to have the best handle on anything we need to know about conflict/war in the middle east.

As the use of nuclear materials increases, does not the awesome task of waste disposal rear its ugly head. Here at home, this issue is huge. I wonder if this has been thought through by those so eager to advance their nuclear programs for energy and/or military action. I realize that there is a lot of space in the desert but, you can’t just keep digging up the desert to bury waste.

So we have a wacko that was democratically elected as the Iran president - regime change is not an option. For this issue, we have to wait for the Iranians to change their minds on the direction of their country - that’s how Democracy works - kinda like here at home. We can impose financial difficulties for the people to help motivate them to do something sooner than later.

What we should do if we want to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions is destory their nuclear facilities. No US soldiers need to die, and it sends a clear message than on this subject there is no negotiation, we don’t want war and wont target anything else, but we aren’t going to let them defy the world and their agreements in regards to nuclear development. If they rebuild, we bomb again, sooner or later they won’t be able to find workers to build a nuclear facility - problem solved.

> Why is it we can have nukes, missles, chemical and biological weapons, and no one else can’t ?

Because we had them first, we are the strongest nation (so we aren’t going to give them up), and because we haven’t signed any agreements saying we wont develop them. Iran has signed an agreement saying it wouldn’t pursue this. Rule of law its pretty simple (except apparently when it comes to dealing with foreigners - mexican immigration, Iran, N. Korea, etc).

Also we don’t call for the destruction of any nation or race - another good reason we are ok to have nukes and others aren’t.

redlenses, first, bombing their facilities is an act of war under international law. Hence giving the Iranians the right to attack our troops in Iraq en masse, with artillery, rockets, missiles, and of course troops. But it won’t just be a war with Iran and Iraq, Syria would join, and Russia (possibly, China) would back them with arms and supplies.

Second, where in law does it say one country may bomb another country which poses no imminent or near term threat to it?

Another conflict between us and any other country in the Middle East and/or Asia which is supported by a country in or on the perimeter of that locale is likely IMO to take every ounce of oil that we have and can get our hands on.

We will have all the toys of destruction and no batteries to run them.

Steve,
You have come very close to what I have seen as a problem my whole adult life. We seem to only be willing to practice a politics of expeidience, “Enemy of my enemy - My friend.” This can get a point or two for the election cycle, but leeds to tragic consequences several years later. Can anyone identify a current threat that was not once either tacitly or publicly hailed as freind.

Steve, the President can afford to pay whatever highest bid is necessary to buy the short supply oil he needs to wage war. He has an unlimited credit card in every taxpayer’s wallet. Besides, the higher the price goes due to limited supply, the greater the profits for oil industry investors like the Cheney and Bush families.

We are a long way from running out of oil. We just aren’t that far from unaffordable oil, for the rest of us that is. But for a President in war, the oil spigots will remain open to highest bid, whatever that may be. And the tax payers will foot the bill. Why do you think he wants to make those tax cuts for the wealthy permanent?

Think Tanks were originally created to provide specialist knowledge in specific areas. They were very usefull in supplying non-partisan analysis on many subjects.

Unfortunately, the Conservative Movement created their own Think Tanks in the 1970s. Unlike their predecessors, these Think Tanks were made with a specific Agenda in mind. Thus you get a bunch of nonsense Studies from the Heritage Foundation and such ilk.

Think Tanks are a lot like Fish Tanks…
The longer they are left on their own, the more filled with crap they become…
Pretty much everything is a fish tank eventually finds it’s way to the toilet…
Everything in a fish tanks drifts downwards - and pretty soon it all looks like excrement…
Everyone loves the idea of a fish tank at first, but pretty soon… it sucks and everyone ignores it…

Great analogy.

SicilianEagle,

If Israel attacks Iran, they are on their own. I don’t think enough Americans are going to go along with that.

And, if Iran attacks Israel, that would be bad indeed for Iran.

This exemplifies an important reason for having allies. Iran knows they can’t get away with attacking Israel, and Israel knows there is a sufficient deterrent for Iran to attack Israel.

Now, if Iran is suicidal or crazy, and that could be the case, then we could be looking at World War III.

For example,
Iran attacks Israel and obliterates it,
U.S. attacks Iran,
Russia attacks U.S. troops in Iraq,
China sits it out at first,
N.Korea attacks S.Korea and Japan.
China attacks N.Korea,
India and Pakistan attack each other,
Syria, Iran, and Iraq invade Saudi Arabia, and finish off Israel.
Things escalate in a matter of weeks, and finally, there is an all-out nuclear exchange between China and Russia against the U.S.

That’s one scenario.
We should ask the think tanks.
There must be thousands of possibilities.

If they rebuild, we bomb again, sooner or later they won’t be able to find workers to build a nuclear facility - problem solved.

If they rebuild facilities, be sure they will place them right in Teheran center, beside or under a huge school/university/homes/hospital complex area. Maybe they’re already doing it.

Or, *maybe*, the simple fact that their current facilities are isolated in desert and are NOT is a sign they’re, after all, not trying to hide what they’re doing. Regarding the recent (all by suprise) new nuclear weapons states, North Korea, Pakistan, India and Israel, history tell us that if a nation really want to secretly develop a nukes program, they will succeed to hide it until its completion.

Why everybody think Iran is the only single nation stupid enough to try doing it transparently???

Why is it we can have nukes, missles, chemical and biological weapons, and no one else can’t ?

Because we had them first, we are the strongest nation (so we aren’t going to give them up), and because we haven’t signed any agreements saying we wont develop them. Iran has signed an agreement saying it wouldn’t pursue this. Rule of law its pretty simple (except apparently when it comes to dealing with foreigners - mexican immigration, Iran, N. Korea, etc).

First, stop whinning about lack of Rule of International Laws, your country is not in position to do it after having done its best efforts to discredit UNSC, UN at whole, IAEA, IPT and, more generally, whatever international body not fully controlled by US.

Second, US, like my country, France, and like Iran, had signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), in wich every Nuclear Nations agreed to:
1) not transfering their nukes technology to non nuclear nations
2) reduce and liquidate their nukes stockpiles
3) allow access to peacefull usage of nuclear technology to every nations.

Every nuclear nations have clearly broke the 2) point. Maybe we’re even breaking the 3) one currently with Iran case.
So far, nobody provides a factual proof that Iran is not trying to enforce their right according to 3). I’m not saying that “lack of evidence is evidence of lack” (ah ah ah, how I love this funny Rummy guy!), just that we don’t have evidence. Yet.
We’ve for Pakistan, for India (who don’t sign NPT but with which we’re happy to trade most of our - french like americans - nuclear civil technology; how consistant is that!?) and most probably we’ve some for North Korea too.

But, no, the most nuclear threatfull nation on earth is Iran. They don’t have ballistic missiles able to reach US, but who care, they’re clearly a threat oportunity to US people November election! Hello???
Also, funny how only the ones that, oh suprise, own biggest oil fields are the most “evil” nations these days, no? What happened to Noth Korea nukes program? Isn’t it a threat anymore? Why?
Why not for Iran?…

Also we don’t call for the destruction of any nation or race - another good reason we are ok to have nukes and others aren’t.

Funny, US is actually the ONLY single nation on earth to have effectivelly used nuclear weapons on civilians. 250000+ kills and counting…
Another good reason you’re ok to have nukes and others aren’t???

I beg to disagree. In fact, I don’t beg, I just completly disagree.

BTW, stop calling this global war “War On Terrorism”, when it’s clearly, for everyone not closed mind, that’s should be called “World War on Energy”.

I think the War on Terror will eventually morph into a War on Energy but we are definately in a war on terror presently.

China won’t do anything because of two major reasons:They are our bankers,lending the USA billions every week.A war starts,those billions go unpaid.Plus we are their largets trading partner…egtting bigger every day.I think that a deal has/will be cut between us/them that in the event of a war with Iran,they get their share of oil.In this scenario,big business actually helps out for a change.

Russia is the wild card.If Iran is decimated(and believe me,in a war with Iran it WILL be decimated),southern Russia becomes the new homeland for the Salafist.Thus,they have the most to lose.They will never attack America.Putin will be bought,or already has been.Never forget that every Russian has his price.

Also,Iraq fought Iran to a standstill a decade ago.28 million in Iraq,what 70 million is Iran.At the time,both were armed to the teeth.Recall that before the Iraq invasion those images of the “elite” Republician guard.Well,they were evvicerated in less than 2 weeks.Poof,gone.The same will happen with the Revolotioniary Guard.Poof,gone in a heatbeat.

Where did you read in my posts that I’ve expressed any doubt that, military speaking, US could erase all Iran ground surface?
I’ve no doubt you could. It’s perfectly clear that US have the power (and even a vaste more amount) to do it. That’s not the issue.
The issue is “should you?”.
To be more exact, the real issue is “why should you?”

Because you’re fearing Iran could/would/will develop nukes?
Then go nuke the *whole* world because, in the future, you could bet that *every* nation will do it one day or another. In deterrence of US nuking them, aka in deterrence of your fear of them. How ironic! Or you could enforce the second NPT’s pillar, showing the path to the world: start to disarm your nukes stockpile. Like you said, you’ve the most largest one, show again the good example to the world like you used to do in the past…

Because you’re fearing to be considerer weak?
Then grow up. Consult a psy. Everybody is weak, more or less. What’s so great about being strong, BTW? Does it make americans happier than any other people worldwide?

Because you’re fearing that next November election needs some boost to push up your Commander In Chief image?
Then, shame on you, killing people for political agenda is only that, a shame. Maybe an international crime too but, hey, you know they can’t go after you.

A bonus question here is “what about your boys (and mine, BTW) currently standing in Iran’s neighboors countries: Iraq, Afghanistan?”
Are you ready to lost, let’s say 5000 or 10000 soldiers in a revenge of Iranians after a (air, most probably) strike at Iran nuclear facilities?

Last but not least, there’s way more to loss in a war than to win. Lives, to start: innocents ones -
kids, women, olders, animals. Worldwide moral authority too. Ooops, my bad, this one was lost last time already.

Please. France needs to grow gonads, and quick.

Huh? No need to be the ONLY superpower to be able to eradicate Iran ground. I’ll bet even with its very small military capacities, France could if she will. But what’s the point? I could kill a lot ants with my foot, even if I’ve a (way) smaller foot than you. but what’s the point? Killing ants? Make fun while killing? Who need to grown up!?

One should start to think with its brain and heart and stop using its balls to do it… Balls are very bad think centers, except when they’re crushed.

It takes balls (and scarfs) to aim at peace, when it takes often just bullets to aim at war.

Think Tanks are simply whores of intellect. You ask them a specific quesiton, you pay them, they give you an answer.
Ask them “What will happen if we invade Iraq/n given the following military plan(s)?” You get one answer.
Ask them “What will happen if we invade Iraq/n given the following political philosophy?” You get another answer.
Ask them “How can we get America to support our invasion of Iraq/n?” You get a third answer.
Unfortunately, I think BishCo only asks question 3 and “believes” it will “all come out good in the end”.

>redlenses, first, bombing their facilities is an act of war under international law.

Not if we do it through the UN Security Council. If the UN wants to have any real clout in regards to international agreements and law it needs to enforce international treaties.

The best way to prevent all out war is to firmly enforce and settle dissagreements when the occur - not to ignore them or hem and haw like the UN likes to do until they build up and escalte to the point where a war must be fought.

It’s in the world’s interest to isolate troublemakers.

The UN must be willing to use force to quell problems early or else wars become inevitable.

In regards to Iran and the NPT, the UN has given Iran an internationally acceptable way to persue #3. If Iran was not calling for the destruction of a Nation, maybe the situation would be different…

Redlenses, you mean like the Geneva Conventions, NAFTA regarding Canadian soft timber, and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If the UN Security Council began enforcing treaties, the U.S. and Bush Administration would be in deep caca!

Can’t have it both ways Redlenses, though most Republicans act as though they can.

David,
Great article and excellent responses showing the Conservative and Liberal Thinking that has been impresed on Society by the Democrats and Republicans Leadership. However, this is one issue that “Common Sense” can lend a hand to the Diplomacy over Iran.

Now, anyone can say what they like; however, the President of Iran does have the Authority to invokes His Nation’s unalienable Right to build a nuclear Bomb. Yet, would not this action by Iran place the U.S. and Nations of the Region in Harms Way? And if that is the case than does not America and the Nations of the Region have the Right of the same Law which gives Iran its unalienable Right as a Nation to defend themselves against any and all types of Attacks that are concievable?

And Conservatives and Liberals the following is the reason that you want to start demanding from your political party learn what it means to be Politically Unalienable Correct. Because you see Diplomatically, President Bush and the Leaders of the Region can build an Anti-Missle System around Iran and demand complete open inspections of All Goods & Products going into and out of Iran through the WTO for Security reasons.

Now, can you explain to me how the President of Iran is going to tell his Nation’s Elders and Citizens how it is going to cost them to build a bomb that will never leave their air space.

The answer should give every American pause to Think and realize that it is time to VOID Washington so that “We the People” can PUC our Parents World.

Thanks Henry. Just one point of contention. Iran with nuclear weapons would still not constitute a threat to the U.S. The reason is they have no intercontinental ballistic missiles. This was also known to be true of Iraq. No capacity to deliver WMD to the U.S. or western hemisphere.

So, as far as I am concerned, Iran is a regional problem. Not a U.S. problem.

Actually,we should be apprehensive of Iran because they are a terror state with a head of government who not only questions whether the Holocast happened but also is calling for the obliteration of a member UN state.

Seemd pretty clear to me what their intentions are..they would kill every Isreali if given the chance.

As long as nations are in compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty,America does not have a problem.

Iran is in violation.

You are right about Americans being energy pigs.We are our own worst enemy..I have written that in the past.

If Brazil can be energy independant by next year using sugar cane,why can’t we with grain?

If I were a Democratis adviser,I’d build a presential election around that one issue.

They can’t,of course,because they are all in bed with big business..both sides…

“Actually,we should be apprehensive of Iran because they are a terror state with a head of government who not only questions whether the Holocast happened but also is calling for the obliteration of a member UN state.”

He’s the head of state, not the head of government. All he does is talk, thats his entire power. He has some control over the budget, but the possition of president in Iran has had all its power stripped from it, and handed over to the supreme leader. Still, he never had much power, it was the prime minister who was head of government, but that possition was abolished.

He’s a dipshit, but he isnt any threat to anyone. Look at the Ayatolla, when HE starts getting scary, thats when we worry, till then, itd be like Dan Quail making threats while he was vp, he had no power to back it up.

As it stands, the Ayatolla has said no nuclear weapons will be produced in Iran.

As a “cheese eating surrender monkey” I think that there was an easy solution to the current problems. We should have based our military operations in the region under the argument of instilling religious freedom, human rights and the right to democracy. The fact that Muslims cannot convert without fear of death combined means that Islam is not an actual religion; it is a tyrannical dogma. Until Muslims are allowed to freely choose their faith it cannot be regarded as an institution worthy of protection. This enough should supply the motivation to liberate the oppressed. Adding on top of this is the fact that some of the faith’s most intense zealots are now presenting danger to free peoples everywhere. We should be pursuing more than containment, we should be changing the underlying problems of a system that creates ongoing threats.

SicEagle, given Israel’s track record for both preemptory and retalliative attacks against Palestinians, I have 100% confidence that Israel will not allow an Islamic nut in Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Make that 200%.

Therefore, Iran is not a U.S. problem. It only becomes our problem if Bush insists his failed domino theory or occupation of Middle Eastern oil geography can still succeed.

Please do not equate the Palestinians armed with rocks with the Iranians. Its easy for Israel to kill Palestinians the same way it was easy for Germany to make Jews wear the Star of David. Palestine is an occupied country.

As I said, there is no way Israel will strike at Iran when they have the US to do it for them.

Saladin,the best known Muslim since the Prophet,was a member of what ethnic tribe?
a)Turks 2)Syrians 3)Iranians 4)Kurds

Here’s another:

Jerusalem is important to the Muslims why?
a)That’s where the angel Gabriel appeared to him b)He prayed toward Jerusalem before he attacked Mecca
c)He built the first Mosque there
d)He ascended to heaven from there

David,
Although I respect your Nature to look at this problem as a Regional problem, the fact of the matter is that Iran does carry a real threat toward America and the National Security of the World.

From 1979 to Present, Iran has attempted to undermine Peace in the Middle East through acts of and the supporting of Terrorist groups. Additionally, the ability to enrich Yellow Cake to even the stage were nuclear fuel for reactors is made opens up a complete avenue for these Terrorists Groups to change their plastic bombs into “Dirty Bombs.” Thus, placing every square inch of the World at risk of being attacked.

No, Iran may of held the Democrats and Republicans at bay in 1979; however, are you willing to let Iran build the capability of Nuclear Weapons knowing that they are hell bent on bringing America to her knees? Just keep in mind that according to our own tests it only takes Two (2) Bombs to destory the Earth. So IMHO Iran is a direct and indirect threat to America.

Philippe Houdoin,
Research the History of the Testing of WMD’s and you will find that it is Child’s Play to be able to destory the Earth. Something MAD should of taught the Youth of the 60’s IMHO. However, the Knowledge gained about Nature and Its “Pure Energy” is amazing.

So, Henry, you sanction going to war, killing and maiming 10’s of thousands of innocents all because a a few dozen individuals decide to become nuclear terrorists. That my friend, is a morality I have to reject outright. The great majority of Iranians will do nothing to harm the U.S. They just want to live in peace in Iran. But according to you and Bush, they have to be dragged into a war because you want to stop a handful of terrorist minded individuals within their borders.

On purely moral and ethical grounds I have to reject it. It is neither moral nor ethical to take out a person’s extended family because one of its family members desires to kill you or your brother. Yet, that is what you are arguing when you justify making war on all of Iran because a few dozen of its citizens may want to take out a U.S. city.

aldous said ( quote please do not equate the palestinians armed with rocks with the iranians )the plo under arafat was giving billions and billions of dollars for aid and to build a new palestine for the people of palestine to better there lives and to peacefully co exist with israel, arafat gave his word and put it on paper the money started to flow in and what did he do? to help his people he started stealing money billions remember when he was dying and his wife was screaming about HIS money! oh yes lets not forget about his people. he starved them and bought weapons remember the ships full of weapons found by the israel? and he built new schools thats good what did they teach and still teach the only good jew is a dead one! and rocks? what were those rocks that blew up on buses and street cafes or was that c4? that arafats goons provided and the blood money paid to the families. so israel would knock a few houses down or take a few bad plo out for it what would you do clap your hands i think i know what side your on.israel has pulled out of gaza. fact is the ten plus years arafat ran it he put his people in the ground and set the stage for peace back ten more years.and arafats stupid and paranoid policies allowed hamas to come in through the back door and feed his people and make him look like the idiot he really was, btw hamas is fully funded by iran and saudi arabia and is cearly set to stage a war with israel dont think for a minute that if iran does not back down on its nuclear attempts and its hostile position towards israel they will provoke a war with israel and thats what hamas, iran and saudi arabia want huh.

It’s the peace we are losing,for a lot of reasons.The administration (my administration) made so many mistakes that I want to puke.

But so did the military.

They advised the president..Tommy Franks,Rummy,Paul Wolfitz…10,000 other generals.Everyone screwed up.

And the rsults may show in the November mid-terms.

But you know what?It took our governmet 7 long years to adopt a constitution.With two revolts thrown in.7 years.

We want instant gratification.A government now,today,this minute.

Forget it.

Way too much money (read:oil) involved.

Plus by nature Iraqis are the consumate horse-traders.

Again we screwed up by using Western thought on a Mid-East people.

Thankfully,within a few days now(couple weeks,max) a new government will be formed.Late….but formed nonetheless.

It won’t be easy though.Italy had 17 governments fail posy WWII,so this one will fail too.But that’s ok.Slowly they will be driving their ship.

I grieve for the 3000…I pray for their sould every night…heroes,all.

However I pray for the other 2900 too (WTC)and am reminded what can happen if we let our gaurd down.

Nearly 5 years now(come this September)and zero attacks.Yes,I know that Al Queda take time to plan,but I give credit to the president for 5 years of no attacks…and so should you.

Homeland Security sucks presently,so does FEMA. I bet that both get better.Trial and error in uncharted waters.

Let’s see:Saddam about to get the noose,3 elections in Iraq,zero attacks in America since 9/11,an American population getting enlightened about Eastern thought day by day,a government there on the cusp of formation…all done in spite of corruption,kick-backs,Haliburton,you name it.

Talk about getting stuck in a shit storm.

Anyway we are nearly out..the nation is intact..grumbling but certainly not ripped in two like Vietnam.and strangley…very strangly…the liberals I talk too are developing a Republician-like streak about Iran.

In January,I made predictions on WatchBlog.I said 2006 would be very interesting geo-politicially.I was right.

Last thought:A poster above said think-tanks are whores.He is so correct it’s sad.

So nobody seems to be concerned that the source of the problem is the nature of an Islamic state. In Saudia Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, conversion from Islam to any other religion is punishable by imprisonment and death. Moreover, some Muslims believe in compuslive conversion TO Islam, called al-Sayf (the verse of the sword). Iran’s eventual goal will be to spread conversion through the power of the sword. This is the nature of the problem and something should be done to change these basic beliefs within the region.

Since the “think tanks are whores” quote was from me, I’ll be generous with the Iraq(-)9/11 link.

But, I think your “liberals are showing a Republican streak” has the wrong linkage. Liberals are smart realists who simply have different methods and sometimes glaringly different priorities than smart conservatives. We’ve been put in this situation as a result of stupid policy and incompetent execution. There may be no choice as Iran seems to actually be on a nuclear path.

Stick with the cheese head stuff. How many innocent Israeli children have been murdered in their buses?
Do you remember Kiryat Shmona?
When one side tries to minimize collateral deaths and one sides goal is to maximize the carnage, why do you justify the latter?

All major religions (save Buddhism) are built on tales, heroes of war. Islam is no different as they teach the word of Christ is prophetic too.

All religions are impractical if taken on face value and literally adhered to. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam especially, for they are self contradictory in their texts, and therefore force fundamentalist adherents to cherry pick those passages which suit their contemporaneous need. Angry? Quote “an eye for an eye”, for example.

David,
You said “Henry, you sanction going to war, killing and maiming 10’s of thousands of innocents all because a a few dozen individuals decide to become nuclear terrorists.”

Not at all and that is exactly why I stated the case in the manner that I did. Because by using The Law to out flank your opponent’s opinion or actions than the line of Morality is also placed on The President and Citizens of Iran. If the Nuclear Material is used only for reactors inside Iran than the only expense placed upon Iran is the cost of the Nations of the Region defending themselves. However, if they choose to allow “Stupidity” to rule than the only ones that fall in Harms Way is the Citizens of Iran that allow their Government to place such a device in the hands of a Mad Man.

Sort of like America if Congress would let President Bush have a blank check for Iran as they did for Iraq. Than if “We he People” did not do or say anything the Morality Problem would be placed on us when a “Dirty Bomb” went off in any of our major Cities.

Funny thing though about Human Nature and the Nature of Nations, neither last long in History once the Stupidity is brought into the Light. And after all building a nuclear program that would Cost you more than you would save can not be considered worth the Risk regardless of the Benefit.

When it comes to the fact that people under the rule of an Islamic State are told believe or die, and are told force others to believe as well…. we are going beyond the mere problem of fundamentalists, because entire governments are adhering to this doctrine and THIS is the root of the current conflict. Things cannot bet better until these basic tenets are changed.

Xander, you are confusing politics and government with relgion. Israel is a religious government, but, its government does not rule according to all and literal constructs of the Old Testament. If it did, Israel would be dark regime indeed to live under.

And America would be a bankrupt nation if ruled under strict adherence to Christian principles in the New Testament.

One cannot blame the actions of government and its power brokers on the state’s predominant religion. Religion does not force the actions of a society’s governors. The Governors selectively exploit religion to force the actions of its citizens.

Palestinians don’t have Troops or Settlers - they have Gunmen. And Israeli Men With Guns aren’t “Gunmen” they are either Troops or Settlers…

You really have to update your NewSpeak, my friend; get with the programme:

“Gunmen” Bad / “Troops” or “Settlers” Good.

It’s just like in Ireland: the IRA had “Terrorists” and the Orange Order has “Residents” or “Policemen.” Or take Israel when their nascent Prime Ministers were bombing and shooting British Soldiers just like the IRA would later do in Ireland: the Israelis were then “Terrorists” then. But they ceased being them when they became Prime Ministers and Generals.

In the American Revolution, the Founding Fathers were the Terrorists: they were criminally engaged in Insurrection against the Lawful Government. Now, of course, they are Founding Fathers. They were the Good Rebels. As opposed to the Sandinistas:

Why is it when anyone criticizes Israeli tactics, they get called an appologist for terrorists. The Israelis have killed 25 palestinians for every one Israeli casualty from terrorism. If just killing them worked, the fighting would be over. Israel’s strategy has been a failure, and it has to do with acting as sovreign power where they are not. They have not allowed for the formation of a state in Palestine, so there is no true government. The main provider of services to those people is Hamas, which is why it was so succesful politically this year. Israel is loosing the chance for peace because palestine (the geographic region inhabited by the stateless nation the palestinians) gets worse every year. They have no economy, no water, no electricity. They can’t build, check points keep them out of the only jobs availible, which are on the other side of walls.

Israel and Palestine need each other, but until they both acknowdege that, things will keep escalating. Terrorism is horrible, but so is shooting rockets into hotels. Israel claims they try to manage collateral damage, but Mossad doesn’t care who dies when they’re after someone, its only a matter of time, even if the person is just a suspect, they’ll do what is necessary to bring them home, usually dead.

Nations should not make it their business to kill children with missles, but Israeli hard linners think this is the only way to win a peace.

David,
You are missing my point. Yes, every Citizen and Elder of Iran would be placed in Harms Way if the President of Iran would continue to exploit their nuclear options. However, the trick in diplomacy is to make it cost more to make electricity from their own nuclear material than to burn oil or obtain their nuclear fuel from Russia. Thus, the idea is to make it as hard as possible for the President to use Logic and Reason to defend his conyinued pursuit of Nuclear Material. Because IMHO the Citizens of Iran are not Stupid enough to allow their National Treasury to be spent creating their own Doomsday Machine.

I hate to tell you this, Henry, but there is no way Oil-based energy is cheaper than a Nuclear Reactor. Pound for pound, Nuclear Energy is cheaper in every category. It becomes even cheaper if you include allowing Iran to sell the Oil saved from domestic uses.

Aldous, Nuclear power for the U.S. continues to increase in cost by the day. Yucca Mt. is a long way from being finished and has yet to pass all tests required for safe deposition of nuclear waste. Billions have been poured into it, and many billions more are required if it even can be made safe. Add that into the cost of nuclear power, and Nuclear power is not cheap by a damn sight.

Henry, I agree with that strategy. But, oil is a finite supply and long term investing and responsibility demand an oil alternative. Since Hydroelectric is not feasible, don’t know about wind, and solar is still extemely expensive especially to maintain, and is subject to sand storms, nuclear appears to be the only long term solution if one ignores the nuclear waste dilemma, which one shouldn’t.

I admit the initial outlay will be large. However, the long-term savings of nuclear power is undisputed. Look at France. Plus, the billions spent in building will be made up by the billions made in selling the $70 per barrel oil.

Aldous,
Nuclear Power may be cheaper than Oil to produce eclectricity; however, add 15-30 Billion Dollars per year to the cost of nuclear fuel for a Defense System around your Nation and see if it is as cost effective.

David,
Russia has offered Iran free Reactor Fuel and given the geo location of Iran, a Solar Furnance would be a much better way for them not only to provide their Citizens with electricity, but the same system could be used to provide clean drinking water.

HENRY S. of course the day we stop to learn and advance we decline for the future. we can look at the romans to prove that. fact is that there is some crazy people out there and iran is a little shakey at this time in history .if the mirrors could be fixed in only one position i am with you. i would love for the u.s. to go ahead with a solar furnace we have plenty of desserts like las vegas they could use the water also!

Aldous, you haven’t addressed the cost of the waste. The waste can become dirty bomb material, what is the cost of securing the waste? Enormous, absolutely enormous! One cannot discuss the cost of nuclear energy and ignore the cost of securing and disposing of the nuclear waste safely. To do so is a fraud upon the millions or even billions of people who will have to pay for the waste one way or another, now or later.

Jim C,
I agree. One of the most important part of the Electetion in 2006 & 08 will be if the Democrats and Republicans have the Courage to take America to the next level or will it take VOID-ing Washington in order for a Demo-Publican Party to take Center Stage.

Surely, a clear effective path to an Energy Free Society must be made by Our Government if America is going to survive in the War on Terror.